State of KY trying to seize online domain names... - Page 21 - Poker Players Alliance

jamnar · 09-25-2008, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lostit

Any idea who they registered with or who turned them over?

Indeed I do.

Registrar: DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. D/B/A PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.COM

PublicDomainRegistry.com
Domain Manager (domain.manager@publicdomainregistry.com)
14525 SW Millikan #48732
Beaverton
Oregon,97005-2343
US

Lostit · 09-25-2008, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Todd Terry

If true, very disappointing.

Care to expand on this?

I realize they lost their other case, but that was an uphill battle to begin with.

Lostit · 09-25-2008, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamnar

Indeed I do.

Registrar: DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. D/B/A PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.COM

PublicDomainRegistry.com
Domain Manager (domain.manager@publicdomainregistry.com)
14525 SW Millikan #48732
Beaverton
Oregon,97005-2343
US

So this was a US registrar obeying a US court. I think this was to be expected, but still doesn't shed any light on whether foreign registrars will respect a US court.

Todd Terry · 09-25-2008, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lostit

Care to expand on this?

I realize they lost their other case, but that was an uphill battle to begin with.

I'm worried the judge will tell them to GTFO due to lack of standing. Plus it just makes you look guilty if you don't show up, especially if the leader of the organization is dumb enough to tell the press that you want to remain "anonymous".

Edit: And yeah, the other case wasn't exactly confidence-inspiring (it's one thing to lose a case that's impossible to win, another thing to make a decision to bring it).

oldbookguy · 09-25-2008, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lostit

Any idea who they registered with or who turned them over?

I think it may be a ploy on their part:

Contact e-mail on the site is "different" and reflects the following registration:

CONTACT: admin@newgoldencasino.com.

Domain Name: NEWGOLDENCASINO.COM
Registrar: DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. D/B/A PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.COM
Whois Server: whois.PublicDomainRegistry.com
Referral URL: http://www.PublicDomainRegistry.com
Name Server: NS1.SURF4SPEED.COM
Name Server: NS2.SURF4SPEED.COM
Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Updated Date: 24-sep-2008
Creation Date: 23-sep-2008
Expiration Date: 23-sep-2010

obg

MauiPunter · 09-25-2008, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldbookguy

I think it may be a ploy on their part:

Contact e-mail on the site is "different" and reflects the following registration:

CONTACT: admin@newgoldencasino.com.

Domain Name: NEWGOLDENCASINO.COM
Registrar: DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. D/B/A PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.COM
Whois Server: whois.PublicDomainRegistry.com
Referral URL: http://www.PublicDomainRegistry.com
Name Server: NS1.SURF4SPEED.COM
Name Server: NS2.SURF4SPEED.COM
Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Updated Date: 24-sep-2008
Creation Date: 23-sep-2008
Expiration Date: 23-sep-2010

obg

This to me looks like PLAN-B if they loose the court case. I bet this NEW domain is registered with a foreign registrar.

jamnar · 09-25-2008, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lostit

So this was a US registrar obeying a US court. I think this was to be expected, but still doesn't shed any light on whether foreign registrars will respect a US court.

I agree, however the only other registrar to comply so far is Enom, and they only did it with two domains which were owned by a non-functioning company. Note that there are other domains on the list registered with ENom that have not yet been turned over. (gamblingboard.com is an example)

I'm interested to see how this will impact foreign registrars as well. It's difficult to say without any established precedent.

RandG · 09-25-2008, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

Some points:

1) Various sites and companies are planning to show up and fight. So are various organizations, including the PPA. The hearing scheduled for tomorrow will be when appearances, special appearances, and motions to dismiss (maybe) are filed. There will then be a schedule for briefs and trial issued.

2) This has been tried before, just not with gaming sites. Google "wikileaks" and you will the story of a swiss bank seizing the wikileaks domain name in order to prevent people reading about the banks allegedly unlawful tax avoidance schemes. A California judge initially approved the seizure (just like here) but then backed off a few weeks later after a hell of a backlash ... we can hope for the same. Clearly the only thing KY did new was apply this horrid idea to internet gaming.

3) This aint a class action Jay, thats for sure. But it may well be handled by that Chicago firm on a contingency basis (I do not know for certain). One can imagine the fees generated from selling back the domain names if the case is successful.

4) A media campaign is already being planned and will be implemented. Each of us contacting media folks with the story can help make sure it breaks through to the big media outlets.

5) Dumb ideas abound everywhere, not just KY and UT. This one needs to be nipped in the bud. If not, it is far from an understatement to say that not only will US online poker be gone, but so will all sorts of other "questionable" e-commerce: porn, sex toys, firecrackers, guns, alcohol, etc....anything that might violate a state law somewhere, somehow. It will allow any local DA with a need to spice up his re-election campaign with a way to censor the internet for EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE. We all see the horror of that, but does the average Joe?

Skallagrim

Skal:

You are the calm voice of reason in a world of madness.

Thanks,

RG

jamnar · 09-25-2008, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MauiPunter

This to me looks like PLAN-B if they loose the court case. I bet this NEW domain is registered with a foreign registrar.

Domain Name: NEWGOLDENCASINO.COM
Registrar: DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. D/B/A PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.COM

Domain Name: GOLDENCASINO.COM
Registrar: DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. D/B/A PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.COM

I'll agree that it is a possible plan B, but it is registered through the same registrar which is located in the US.

_D&L_ · 09-25-2008, 05:53 PM

Perhaps we can petition the international domain registrars, to set every website related to Kentucky (e.g. Kentucky tourism info, Kentucky.gov, even websites for those 12 Kentucky casinos that the governor is trying to profit, to be redirected to poker sites - or at least to stop functioning) due to Kentucky's misbehavior in trying to takeover the net?

Don't know if its possible, but that would be the immediate backlash that would get the governor's, news, and Kentuckian's attention.

jamnar · 09-25-2008, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _D&L_

Perhaps we can petition the 140 some international domain registrars, to set every website related to Kentucky (e.g. Kentucky tourism info, Kentucky.gov, even websites for those 12 Kentucky casinos that the governor is trying to profit, to be redirected to poker sites - or at least to stop functioning) due to Kentucky's misbehavior in trying to takeover the net?

Don't know if its possible, but that would be the immediate backlash that would get the governor's, news, and Kentuckian's attention.

I think this would also establish an ugly precedent, if it were possible.

Skallagrim · 09-25-2008, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Todd Terry

I'm worried the judge will tell them to GTFO due to lack of standing. Plus it just makes you look guilty if you don't show up, especially if the leader of the organization is dumb enough to tell the press that you want to remain "anonymous".

Edit: And yeah, the other case wasn't exactly confidence-inspiring (it's one thing to lose a case that's impossible to win, another thing to make a decision to bring it).

Todd, I'm not sure you meant it this way, but just so everyone is clear on the subject, nobody expects any Domain name owner to show up in person (or by corporate executive). Many, if not all, will be sending their lawyers though. And since they all will also need at least one Kentucky licensed lawyer to appear, I am sure many of the owners will have hired the same lawyers and it would not appear at all unusual or "guilty" for one group like Imega to coordinate for a number of the domain name owners.

The anonymous bit to the press was unhelpful and does not inspire confidence. But Imega are not going to be the only ones fighting this, certainly not the only ones talking to the media.

Skallagrim

Todd Terry · 09-25-2008, 06:10 PM

I read the G911 article as no sites were sending lawyers, they were just sending iMEGA, which is dumb. If that's not the case, fine. Obviously they don't have to personally show up, just send a lawyer.

Edit: "In short, we provide individuals and companies that may be affected by this Kentucky action with the highest quality of legal representation that is second to none while, at the same time, the opportunity to remain anonymous by letting iMEGA be the face before the court--which is precisely what associational standing is meant to accomplish."

_D&L_ · 09-25-2008, 06:14 PM

The problem with appearing in court, even under a special appearance, means that the jurisdictional issue will be litigated by a Kentucky court (aka biased court).

I'm not sure, but if ICANN or whatever is Cali based, the poker sites could perhaps raise the jurisdictional issue there when kentucky tries to enforce the order over their property (their domain name) - and the Cali courts would certainly be less biased, and more pro poker (gotta love San Francisco'ins). But if they litigate in Kentucky, i think they may waive their ability to challenge in California.

Also, they may wave the jurisdictional issue even in their home jurisdictions - not that I presume to have much of a clue as to what types of laws govern on the island of man (e.g. whether they recognize US decisions, etc.) - but generally once u choose to challenge jurisdiction, u generally waive the ability to rechallenge in the jurisdiction it is enforced in.

e.g. for a court case showing this within the US see paragraph 8 here....
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/...68.5705_1.html

p.s. it might be a good legal strategy to use some defunct poker site on that list of 141, and use them to challenge everything (or some other proxy with standing)...because if they lose - no big loss...Kentucky wins some defunct poker site. I think that is what the laywer is trying to do with iMEGA, but i wonder about the standing issue as well - since associational representation - as far as i know- tends to be allowed when the represented entities can't represent themselves (e.g. poverty, exploitable class, etc) - i'm not sure the judge is going to allow this for a poker site that could very well walk through the door with a highly paid lawyer.

Richas · 09-25-2008, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluegrass Poker

LOL, that's an ex-girlfriend for you. If you don't mind my asking what firm does she work for, I just want to know who the sites have got to represent them. Only a few big firms in KY who would take this on.

As long as it's not Stites and Harbison then I'll be happy. (And Stites is a good firm but it just happens to be the one Gov. Beshear was in when elected.)

LOL i bet you sent it to her work email too......